People v. Strong
| Decision Date | 09 June 1977 |
| Citation | 366 N.E.2d 867,42 N.Y.2d 868,397 N.Y.S.2d 779 |
| Parties | , 366 N.E.2d 867 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Freeman STRONG, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Peter L. Yellin, Public Defender (Stephen G. Cheikes, Rochester, of counsel), for appellant.
Lawrence T. Kurlander, Dist. Atty. (Michael Nelson, Rochester, of counsel), for respondent.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of the crime of criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument in violation of section 220.45 of the Penal Law. That section, in pertinent part, provides plainly and directly that "(a) person is guilty of criminally possessing a hypodermic instrument when he knowingly and unlawfully possesses or sells a hypodermic syringe or hypodermic needle." Pursuant to this statute, then, and aside from the question of unlawful and knowing possession, the jury must determine, not whether the hypodermic instrument was functional but, more simply, whether the item unlawfully possessed was, in fact, a hypodermic needle or syringe.
On the question of possession, here proved by circumstantial evidence, we need only note that the evidence was sufficient under the appropriate test (see People v. Wachowicz, 22 N.Y.2d 369, 372, 292 N.Y.S.2d 867, 868, 239 N.E.2d 620, 622) to sustain the conviction.
Order affirmed in a memorandum.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Escalera
...to an information. (No laboratory report is required to prove possession of a hypodermic instrument. People v. Strong, 42 N.Y.2d 868, 397 N.Y.S.2d 779, 366 N.E.2d 867 [1977]. Defense counsel objected on the ground that conversion could only be accomplished by the filing with the court of a ......
-
People v. Sacco
...38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608). Possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence (People v. Strong, 42 N.Y.2d 868, 869, 397 N.Y.S.2d 779, 780, 366 N.E.2d 867, 869; People v. Gogarty, 5 A.D.2d 413, 415, 172 N.Y.S.2d 734, 735) but "where reliance is placed solely thereon,......
-
People v. Gunatilaka
...operability is irrelevant to the facial sufficiency of this count of the information. (See, e.g., People v. Strong, 42 N.Y.2d 868, 397 N.Y.S.2d 779, 366 N.E.2d 867 [1977].) The question of what form of proof will suffice to establish the presence of a proscribed substance has apparently nev......
-
People v. Opris
...193, 366 N.Y.S.2d 140 (First Dept.1975), affirmed 38 N.Y.2d 955, 384 N.Y.S.2d 151, 348 N.E.2d 608 (1976); People v. Strong, 42 N.Y.2d 868, 397 N.Y.S.2d 779, 366 N.E.2d 867 (1977). Pursuant to Penal Law § 220.00(2) "unlawful" is defined as "in violation of article thirty-three of the public ......